But The Discrimination Is Justified Because...

In an earlier post I examined some of the reasons I find discrimination troubling.  In the last post I responded to some common arguments that try to claim that the prohibition on SSM is not a case of sex discrimination.  It is one thing to try to justify the discrimination, but those arguments merely ignored the discrimination and evaded the issue.  Today, I will examine some arguments that deal with the issue and try to justify the discrimination.  Such arguments will need to explain why the sex of the individual makes their situation so different as to justify the disparate treatment.  Note it is not enough to say that gender differences are real.  If that alone were enough, all gender discrimination as well as religious discrimination would be justified.  Any substantive argument needs to address why these differences justify disparate treatment when it comes to marriage. 

…a person cannot procreate with a person of the same sex.  This certainly does make the situation different.  It implies the germane characteristic, though, is the ability to impregnate or get impregnated by ones spouse.  As any SSM proponent will remind you, though, even those without the ability to impregnate their spouse are still allowed to marry if they are of the correct sex.  So in this case, gender is acting as an imperfect—although still fairly good—proxy for the germane characteristic. But as most SSM opponents will remind you, there are some reasons to avoid using the germane characteristic directly.  So we might consider the use of a proxy, and hence the discrimination, as justified in this circumstance.  That would only be the case, though, if we could justify the discrimination on the basis of the germane characteristic directly.  That is, if we believed the inability to procreate justified withholding the validation of a marriage, it might make sense to use gender as an imperfect but close proxy to achieve that goal.  Sure, some infertile couples may marry, but that is unavoidable because of practical considerations.  I don’t believe, however, the discrimination on the basis of the ability to procreate is justified in the first place.  Furthermore, I don’t believe that most who support the sex based discrimination would support it if applied to this supposedly germane characteristic directly.  That is I don’t see the infertile marrying as some detriment that should be avoided if possible.   I don’t see the situation of an infertile couple marrying as being so different so as to justify denying the marriage.  Yes, it’s different, but the many things that an infertile marriage has in common with a potentially fertile one—not least of which is the possibility of having children through other means-- are far more important than this difference.  In any case, unless one believes the direct discrimination is justified, there is no way the proxy discrimination can be justified and I suspect the motive behind the discrimination is not truly the desire to weed out infertile couples.

…a same-sex couple cannot provide both the mother and the father that a child needs.  From a policy perspective I have often wondered why it is better for the children to be raised by unmarried parents of the same sex than by married parents of the same sex.  Those are issues that I have dealt with elsewhere, and will continue to address elsewhere.  For now, I want to focus merely on the discrimination aspects.  I see this situation as having much in common with other circumstances in which parents marry.  They cannot provide everything for their child, but they try their best to provide as much as they can.  A person who wishes to marry someone of the same sex also generally seeks to provide for their children (present or future) as much as they can.  In choosing a spouse we tend to think of what sort of parent that person would be, but we don’t forbid others from marriage simply because the chosen spouse is not able to provide everything we would want a child to have. 

On a deeper level, though, there is something that troubles me even more about this argument.  Essentially it says that a man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father.  Well certainly by definition that is true, but as we have noted we must move beyond the definition in matters of discrimination.  What is it exactly that we are saying a man can provide for a child that a woman cannot (or vice-versa)?  I have heard three answers to that question, although I am certainly receptive to more. 

The first answer I have heard is a general one that a child relates to his or her father differently than to a mother.  This highlights, however, an aspect of discrimination I find troubling.  We relate to all individuals differently.  A child relates to his or her parents as individuals and not as some representative of a larger group.  We should be focusing on the individual things a person can provide for his or her child, and not resort to generalities about how men or women behave.

The second answer I have heard is slightly more specific and points out that only a parent of the same gender can know first hand what it is like to be that gender and can relate to the unique difficulties of maturing with a particular physical body.  Of course children grow up with all sorts of experiences and difficulties.  Sometimes one parent can relate to it directly, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.  Even when parents don’t know first hand what the experience is like, though, they can often relate in some other way.  The situation of a parent not being able to relate directly to all of the experiences of a child is common to all parents, and I don’t believe it is justified to use this one particular instance to justify denying the child’s parents the ability to marry one another. 

The final answer I have heard is that only a parent of a certain gender can role model that gender.   This highlights what I think I find most troubling about the discrimination.  First of all, as in the last case, parents relate or don’t relate to the child on so many levels that to focus on this difference strikes me as wrong.  We don’t prohibit a marriage because it lacks a parent who can model other roles.  Only gender roles are so necessary so as to require this distinction.  Furthermore, what use is it to model a role unless a person is going to model it well?  I don’t know what "male" qualities a father is supposed to be model, but I have been told they include duty, honor, and responsibility. Aren’t these virtues a woman can model as well?  Just the idea that there are gender roles that need to be modeled I find troubling.  I don’t think our genders should determine our roles and that is precisely what I find most difficult about gender discrimination.  It implies there are such roles and I would rather leave it to the individual to determine what significance gender will play in his or her life decisions.

Some have hinted that I might be setting the standards too high for what is necessary to justify the discrimination. Well, then I have high standards.  I would note, though, that what passes for justification of the sex discrimination here, might be used to justify just about any instance of sex discrimination.  What if the government decided that a child not only needs a mother and a father, but a mother who stays home with the child?  It might seek to prohibit women from the workplace (for the sake of the children, of course).  What troubles me in that case is the same as what troubles me in this instance of sex discrimination.   The government should not let gender determine our roles.  We should allow the parent to decide what is best for her child, which in an individual case might involve the mother working (or the mother marrying a woman).  And we should recognize that the woman who wants to work to provide for her child or the woman who wants to marry her beloved spouse to protect her family is in essentially the same situation as the man who desires to do the same things.

Comments

[Stentor]

There's another problem with the "relating to the child's body" and "modeling gender roles" arguments -- they explain why a child needs a parent of the same sex, but they don't address the need for a parent of the opposite sex. By those arguments, it's fine for same sex couples to have kids, as long as gay men only have sons and lesbians only have daughters. Under this logic, same sex parenting may be even better, because *both* parents can relate to the child's sex/gender.

[Chairm]

Stentor, I dout that's what is meant. The man-woman criterion of marriage assumes that a son needs to be mothered and a daughter needs to be fathered. This goes through a fairly predictable transformation as both children and their parents grow old together.

The combination of the sexes is the key, not the "gender roles".

We are not disembodied persons trapped in flesh and bone. We don't pack and unpack our sex like a wardrobe of costumes. A man does not play the role of father, he is a father. His sons and daughters make him a father. They do not need an abstraction who makes fatherly gestures at this moment and motherly gestures at the next.

The family has always been a sort of mini-society in which children are protected and prepared for the broader society and culture. But I suppose that nowadays much of this is lost with such small families and with the too-ready dissoluton of marriages. Society wants to be supportive and not say that a lone mom or a lone dad can't do it all for the kids.

The duality of humankind is not a minor glitch in the works. It's who we are. It takes a tremendous amount of willpower, ultimately unsustainable, to deny this during a lifetime of raising children who in turn mature and raise children and on and on.

Being a dad or being a mom is not about role playing. Kids are kids, they don't step in and out of character.

[Well, except when they become teenagers but that's a whole other thing. ;-)]

[Galois]

Chairm,

I believe in the unity of humankind, (as a reflection of the unity of God). But I wonder in reading your post, how does being a mom differ from being a dad? What does it mean to father a child as opposed to mother a child?

[lucia]

They do not need an abstraction who makes fatherly gestures at this moment and motherly gestures at the next.
Or to add to Gabriel's question: What would a motherly gesture be-- as opposed to a fatherly gesture?

One of my parents made oatmeal for all of us on cold mornings-- was that motherly or fatherly?

One taught me to ride a bike. One made milk shakes on summer evenings. One taught me to read. One helped me with chemistry homework. One discussed history. One fixed waffles on Sundays. One listened to me when I was lonely.

Which gestures were "motherly"? Which were "fatherly".

I know which my mother did and which my father did -- but I honestly don't know which gestures were motherly or fatherly!

[Chairm]

Okay. Not motherly. Not fatherly. Parently. If you insist. No difference.

In theory.

Rather than look to the role of the father or mother, look to how children, at the earliest ages, respond to their moms and dads.

I don't know if either of you have ever raised a child, but I have yet to meet a lone father or lone mother who had not detected the deficit that was experienced by their motherless or fatherless children. A mom and grandmom can't fill the deficit left by an absent father; neither can a male neighbour fill the shoes of a missing mom. People do try and kids do survive, but the deficit is not easily dismissed. In some ways, the lack of siblings is felt almost as strongly. As I mentioned earlier, family is the mini-society that unites humankind. Behaving as if parents were unisex partners would be a manifest form of disunity should it become widespread.

I'm not the guy to give you the expert treatsie on why this is so. Maybe someone else can articulate the theories that properly frame the reality on the ground.

But I do know that culture is how humankind adapts to the world, and to the cards we're dealt physiologically. We can't will away the duality of who we (human beings) are.

Unity, Galois?

Humankind is fundamentally of men and women and it is marriage that unifies the two halfs. It is the bridge. The keystone of that bridge is procreation and childraising. Disunity is increasingly prevalent in our marriage culture here in the America. It is seen most starkly in our underclass where children are at their most vulnerable. The unisex theories are less relevant on the ground, believe it or not.

If you want to put your finger on just what makes a father and what makes a mother, live in our inner cities. You'll know it when you see it even if you'd find it tough to articulate it precisely.

[Chairm]

That should have been: You'll know it when you see it even if, like me, you'd find it tough to articulate precisely.

[trey]

What you are seeing in our 'inner cities' Chairm is less a lack of two parents (i've seen LOTS of single parents in the suburbs) than it is a lack of MONEY. Its called poverty. And that poverty is exacerbated by having only one parent to both care for and provide for children.

Usually when I see people refer to the different things fathers and mothers offer to the raising of children, it is a gender dichotomy you see in shows like "Father knows best" (mother: nuture, father: provide, mother: console, father: discipline, etc). There are several things wrong with this dichotomy. First, EVEN IF it is a 'biological' dichotomy, by the nature of genetics, _individuals_ often do NOT fit within it. There are many nuturing fathers and disciplinarian mothers, consoling fathers and providing mothers. Second, you are assuming two gay men (or two gay women) will fit the stereotyped behavior of 'fathers' because they are men (and thus the traits a mother offers are missing). This is far from the truth. In every same-sex relationship I've seen so far with children, the traits of nuturing, consoling, disciplining, providing etc (and all those other traits) are all provided. Sometimes by both fathers, sometimes more of one by one father and more of others by the other. For example, in our own family dynamic, I tend to be the consoling/nurturing one (though my partner is more so than a lot of fathers) and the one who is more 'lenient', we both provide (though he more so), and he is more the disciplinarian. We don't each fit the traditional roles 'dichotomy', but we together we have all the traits. I see that in a lot of gay couples. Heck, I see it in straight couples too.

[lucia]

>>In some ways, the lack of siblings is felt almost as strongly.

Really? I know tons of people who were only children who felt no lack due to being only children.

I have also known kids whose brother or sister died. They felt a lack--- they missed that specific sibling!

There is a big difference between missing someone who was once in your life and missing someone who never existed or who you never knew.

[Galois]

Chairm,

If you can't articulate what is motherly and what is fatherly, then I have no way of judging the importance of a child being raised by a parent of each gender as opposed to two parents of the same gender. Nor do I understand why your unarticulated theory implies that when a child's parents are of the same gender that child should be denied the protections of marriage.

I do not have any unisex theory. I believe there are men and there are women. But I believe gender is one facet of who we are as individuals, and it is that individual as a whole that is most important. We are all created in God's image and thus are all one humankind despite the many differences in our character and abilities.

[Chairm]

>>> Trey: "What you are seeing in our 'inner cities' Chairm is less a lack of two parents (i've seen LOTS of single parents in the suburbs) than it is a lack of MONEY. Its called poverty. And that poverty is exacerbated by having only one parent to both care for and provide for children."

While there is poverty in the inner cities, that doesn't explain the problems of fatherlessness in homes where two women raise children, for example. The discrepancy becomes more stark in the inner cities because it is far more prevalent. If the rest of the country follows the new norm in the inner cities, the vast majority of children will live in fatherless homes. Money alone is not the issue.

>>>"you are assuming two gay men (or two gay women) will fit the stereotyped behavior of 'fathers' because they are men (and thus the traits a mother offers are missing)."

Actually, you've assumed stereotypes by reaching for the old standy, 'Father Knows Best'. As I said, it is not just about "gender roles" assumed by this or that father or mother.

>>> Lucia: "I know tons of people who were only children who felt no lack due to being only children."

Examine the evidence beyond your own tonnage of associates. [Just kidding around.]

Can you truly claim that single children felt "no lack" due to their being only-children? From a sociological viewpoint, the ad hoc network of non-related children are, for a lone-child, substitutes for siblings. (Both those never born and those removed by death or circumstance.)

Parents have long attempted to make-up the shortfall in a variety of ways. Socializing at daycares or playgrounds, for instance. Associating with the next door neighbours. The "big brother" and "big sister" programs, for example, are a sort of bridge (in concept) between the one-child and one-sex-parent scenarios. The toughest cases are precisely those where a lone-son is raised without father; and that's not brushed aside by the presence of a truly loving grandmom or aunte or female room-mate. No matter how much cash they have. Interestingly, the presence of an older brother (much older) often does make the most positive difference, short of father.

Same-sex parenting is usually presented as providing a second mother in the absence of a father, or a second father in the absence of a mother. Besides the fact that by far most of the children in same-sex households already have both moms and dads (though divorced), the case of adoption also strives to make-up a shortfall in the life of a parentless child. Not so for ART.

>>> "There is a big difference between missing someone who was once in your life and missing someone who never existed or who you never knew"

How would you describe that difference? I mean, are you claiming that a child's father never existed just because that child lives with mother but not with father? That the child's not getting to know father is balanced by knowing mother's same-sex partner?

Galois:

You appear to be looking at gender through the prism of a unisex theory about "gender roles". Can you articulate the fundamental reasons that humankind exists as both men and women? Or in terms of peer pressure, can you assuredly articulate the whys and hows of the influence of age cohorts on boys as they grow-up?

>>> "I do not have any unisex theory. I believe there are men and there are women. But I believe gender is one facet of who we are as individuals, and it is that individual as a whole that is most important. We are all created in God's image and thus are all one humankind despite the many differences in our character and abilities."

Perhaps there is another thread in which you've already discussed this concept. Let me know and I'll respond wherever you think works best in keeping the strings of thought together.

[Sorry haven't been contributing frequently. Great vacation. Lousy weather. Time limited. Etc.]

[lucia]

>>Examine the evidence beyond your own tonnage of associates. [Just kidding around.]

Can you truly claim that single children felt "no lack" due to their being only-children? From a sociological viewpoint, the ad hoc network of non-related children are, for a lone-child, substitutes for siblings. (Both those never born and those removed by death or circumstance.)

You simply claimed the only children felt lack of siblings strongly, providing no basis. It contradicts my experience-- I know many only children and they don't seem to have experienced any lack. If, as you suggest, all these other networks do indeed successfully fill whatever essential function you attribute to siblings, I should think there would be no feeling of lack.

>>>>> "There is a big difference between missing someone who was once in your life and missing someone who never existed or who you never knew"

How would you describe that difference?
We were describing siblings. I had a friend who was murdered in highschool. She was the oldest daughter in a family of five. The entire family was devastated and grieved profoundly. The mother and father ended up in counseling to manage their grief. This is entirely different from what would have occurred had she never been born.

You cannot infer how one feels about never knowing someone from how they feel when they lose the very specific individual who they lost. The feelings are different.

[Galois]

Chairm,

I apologize in that I was away for several months and neglected this. I'll respond now, if you don't mind.

Can you articulate the fundamental reasons that humankind exists as both men and women?

No. I cannot articulate reasons why humankind exists as it does in any respect. I do not know why are we all so different on so many levels, and yet why in spite of that we share one humanity.

Or in terms of peer pressure, can you assuredly articulate the whys and hows of the influence of age cohorts on boys as they grow-up?

I cannot. But nor do I try to justify any discrimination based on peer pressure.